Re: SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper
От | ITAGAKI Takahiro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20090107103521.80FB.52131E4D@oss.ntt.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | SQL/MED dummy vs postgresql wrapper (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote: > We could just use the dummy wrapper and set an > option for the foreign data wrapper that tells what options are valid. That > is, you would say > > CREATE FOREIGN DATA WRAPPER postgresql_dummy LIBRARY 'dummy_fdw' LANGUAGE C > OPTIONS (valid_options '{host,port,dbname,user,password...}'); Looks reasonable, but is 'dummy_fdw' a proper name for it? I think 'template_fdw' or something might be better. If we will complete 'postgres_fdw' as a replacement of dblink, the fdw will not need the flexibility because it should accept only valid parameters for PostgreSQL. Then, 'dummy_fdw' might be kept only for user-defined FDWs. Since users see the library name, we'd better to choose more suitable name for it. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: